11th.com

Bayer paid $63B for Monsanto. Here's what the due diligence missed. $38M investor settlement, late claims open. Location: California June 2018. Bayer completes its $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto, one of the largest agricultural deals in history. Management tells investors they've done their homework. Legal risks assessed. Roundup exposure understood. The deal is clean. **August 10, 2018 — 61 days after closing:** A California jury awards **$289 million** to a groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after years of Roundup exposure. The verdict doesn't just create a liability, it signals that thousands of similar cases waiting in the pipeline could succeed too. More verdicts follow. Each one confirms the same thing: Roundup exposure and cancer. The litigation wasn't a fringe risk. It was an existential one. **March 19, 2019:** Another adverse verdict. **$BAYRY drops 11% in a single session.** Investors sued alleging Bayer knew, or should have known during due diligence, the full scope of Roundup litigation risk before closing a $63 billion deal, and failed to disclose it. The questions the lawsuit raised: * How many Roundup cases were already filed or threatened before the acquisition? * What did Monsanto's own internal research show about glyphosate risks? * What did Bayer's legal team find during the due diligence process? * Why did none of that translate into adequate investor disclosure? Bayer settled for **$38 million** in April 2025.[ Late claims](http://11th.com/cases/bayer-investor-settlement) are still being considered. Eligible if you bought **$BAYRY ADS between May 23, 2016 and July 6, 2020.** Payout: \~**$0.23/share.** Paying $63B for a company while underestimating its litigation exposure is one of the more expensive due diligence failures in M&A history. Anyone here follow the Roundup case pipeline before the first verdict landed?